ArticleSpine surgery and related research2024
Spinopelvic Parameters in the Elderly: Does Inadequate Correction Portend Worse Outcomes?
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Full versus partial correction of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch in lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Single-Segment Spinal Decompression and Fusion With Selective Nerve Root Block in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- "Koshimagari Exercise" for Adult Spinal Deformity in Older Adults: Assessment of Home-Based Exercise Outcomes in a Prospective Multicenter Study.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of corrective fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD) in older people using two different sagittal correction goals: the conventional formula of "pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch <10°" and an undercorrection strategy based on the range of 10°≤PI-LL≤20°. Methods: A total of 102 consecutive patients (11 male and 91 female patients; mean age, 72.0 years) aged above 65 years with scoliosis >20° or LL<20° who had undergone long-segment fusion from the lower thoracic spine to the pelvis for ASD and had been followed-up for a minimum of two years at our institution since March 2013 were included in this retrospective study. After excluding patients with PI-LL≤-10° on postoperative standing radiographs, the remaining patients were divided into two groups: 31 patients with 10°≤PI-LL≤20° (U group) and 63 patients with -10°<PI-LL<10° (M group). Radiological and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: The incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis and mechanical failure was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.659 and 1.000, respectively). After excluding patients who underwent reoperation due to mechanical failure, there were no differences in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and each domain of the Visual Analog Scale score, Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire (SRS-22r), or the short form 36 health survey questionnaire at the final observation between the U (n=27) and M (n=57) groups. In addition, the non-inferiority and equivalence of the U group to the M group were demonstrated in all domains of the SRS-22r and ODI. Furthermore, the superiority of the U group was demonstrated by the functional domain of SRS-22r. Conclusions: For the sagittal correction goal in corrective fusion surgery for ASD in the elderly, strict adherence to "PI-LL mismatch <10°" is not necessary and "PI-LL≤20°" may be acceptable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.